But wouldn't the expansion of the universe and growing entropy eventually limit the formation of these entities and their lifespan? Yes, maybe quantum mechanics somehow makes it possible for a fully formed mind to pop out of the quantum foam, but one it appears it will probably "die" because of a lack of energy to process.Also, I just don't understand how it breaks physics if our point of view isn't the dominant one for all eternity. That wasn't explained well

Mad_Radhu:But wouldn't the expansion of the universe and growing entropy eventually limit the formation of these entities and their lifespan? Yes, maybe quantum mechanics somehow makes it possible for a fully formed mind to pop out of the quantum foam, but one it appears it will probably "die" because of a lack of energy to process.Also, I just don't understand how it breaks physics if our point of view isn't the dominant one for all eternity. That wasn't explained well

Exactly what I came here to say (only better worded than I would have managed). This article doesn't appear to make any sense at all.

Hell, if you get down to it, our point of view isn't even the dominant one on Earth, today. That'd be insects or bacteria probably, depending on what you consider a "point of view." That starts to get pretty subjective and murky in that we don't really have a good picture of what sentience is in the first place.

But anyway, I digress, none of this seems to have any importance to Physics. It might be interesting in Philosophy I suppose, but only barely IMHO.

Abner Doon:Mad_Radhu: But wouldn't the expansion of the universe and growing entropy eventually limit the formation of these entities and their lifespan? Yes, maybe quantum mechanics somehow makes it possible for a fully formed mind to pop out of the quantum foam, but one it appears it will probably "die" because of a lack of energy to process.Also, I just don't understand how it breaks physics if our point of view isn't the dominant one for all eternity. That wasn't explained well

Exactly what I came here to say (only better worded than I would have managed). This article doesn't appear to make any sense at all.

Hell, if you get down to it, our point of view isn't even the dominant one on Earth, today. That'd be insects or bacteria probably, depending on what you consider a "point of view." That starts to get pretty subjective and murky in that we don't really have a good picture of what sentience is in the first place.

But anyway, I digress, none of this seems to have any importance to Physics. It might be interesting in Philosophy I suppose, but only barely IMHO.

It's enough to throw one into an existential crisis. Or at least start off a good old fashioned bender.

neongoats:Abner Doon: Mad_Radhu: But wouldn't the expansion of the universe and growing entropy eventually limit the formation of these entities and their lifespan? Yes, maybe quantum mechanics somehow makes it possible for a fully formed mind to pop out of the quantum foam, but one it appears it will probably "die" because of a lack of energy to process.Also, I just don't understand how it breaks physics if our point of view isn't the dominant one for all eternity. That wasn't explained well

Exactly what I came here to say (only better worded than I would have managed). This article doesn't appear to make any sense at all.

Hell, if you get down to it, our point of view isn't even the dominant one on Earth, today. That'd be insects or bacteria probably, depending on what you consider a "point of view." That starts to get pretty subjective and murky in that we don't really have a good picture of what sentience is in the first place.

But anyway, I digress, none of this seems to have any importance to Physics. It might be interesting in Philosophy I suppose, but only barely IMHO.

It's enough to throw one into an existential crisis. Or at least start off a good old fashioned bender.

One reason is as good as another.

Space brains, right before the endless void that everything will become.

child_god:neongoats: Abner Doon: Mad_Radhu: But wouldn't the expansion of the universe and growing entropy eventually limit the formation of these entities and their lifespan? Yes, maybe quantum mechanics somehow makes it possible for a fully formed mind to pop out of the quantum foam, but one it appears it will probably "die" because of a lack of energy to process.Also, I just don't understand how it breaks physics if our point of view isn't the dominant one for all eternity. That wasn't explained well

Exactly what I came here to say (only better worded than I would have managed). This article doesn't appear to make any sense at all.

Hell, if you get down to it, our point of view isn't even the dominant one on Earth, today. That'd be insects or bacteria probably, depending on what you consider a "point of view." That starts to get pretty subjective and murky in that we don't really have a good picture of what sentience is in the first place.

But anyway, I digress, none of this seems to have any importance to Physics. It might be interesting in Philosophy I suppose, but only barely IMHO.

It's enough to throw one into an existential crisis. Or at least start off a good old fashioned bender.

One reason is as good as another.

Space brains, right before the endless void that everything will become.

Drinking time!

Combine that with the bit released last year of the discovery of vast nebulae of alcohol and I think we can guess why they never made it...

"This means that, over the entire history of the universe, it is the Boltzmann brains' experience of the universe and not ours that is typical. That's a problem, because the starting point for our understanding of the universe and its behaviour is that humans are typical observers. If we are not, our theories begin to look iffy. "

URH?

Okay, this pretty much proves that physicists really do need to get outside, more. IT DOES NOT MATTER if a different frame of reference for entirely different creatures might lead to different theories. ALL theories, if they are truly scientific, are merely provisional. ALL scientific theories are inherently "iffy".

Mad_Radhu:But wouldn't the expansion of the universe and growing entropy eventually limit the formation of these entities and their lifespan? Yes, maybe quantum mechanics somehow makes it possible for a fully formed mind to pop out of the quantum foam, but one it appears it will probably "die" because of a lack of energy to process.

The lower the level of available energy, the slower the thinking process. Because absolute zero is never reached, the brains will simply think more and more slowly, until the twilight of the Universe is encompassed by a single thought never quite being finished.

That's partly because the theory itself doesn't make any sense. It's based on a horrible misunderstanding of very basic probability theory. The most remarkable thing is how widespread the fallacy is among otherwise-intelligent people.

The argument goes like this:

1) There are two possibilities: the universe is real, as we observe it; or I am a Boltzmann brain, observing (i.e.dreaming) an imaginary universe.

2) If Boltzmann brains actually exist, they and their imaginary universes must eventually hugely outnumber real universes

3) Therefore, if someone observes a universe and if observers are distributed randomly across people and Boltzmann brains, it's overwhelmingly likely that any randomly selected observer is really a Boltzmann brain,

4) In general, I should prefer the explanation that does not require my observations to be special, therefore I am (probably) a Boltzmann brain, because most observers are.

Now, you may think that reasoning is so absurd that I just made it up/cribbed it from Douglas Adams to make the advocates of Boltzmann brains look silly. But I didn't. That really is the argument.

There are so many things wrong with this reasoning that it's hard to know where to start, but what it basically boils down to is this: It makes no sense to argue for probabilities when you have a sample size of one. The logic in step 4 -- sometimes called the Copernican principle -- works pretty well for astronomers a lot of the time; but not always. For example:

-- There are lots of solar systems, until proven otherwise we should assume ours is pretty typical (probably true, although binary systems with planets are looking to be more common than once thought)

-- There are lots of stars, we should assume ours is average (true, at least for the class of stars ours belongs to)

-- There are lots of galaxies, ours should be average in size, shape, and position relative to other galaxies (largely true)

BUT you can't reason like that about the whole universe, not even if you pretend that infinitely many other universes might possibly exist, because by definition you only get the one universe. And, like my son in kindergarten, "you get what you get and you don't get upset". Maybe the universe is "unlikely" in some abstract space of possible universes, but if so, that's just what it is.

If you spin a roulette wheel once and it comes up with zero, you don't conclude that the wheel is rigged; you conclude that it's impossible to draw conclusions from one spin of the wheel.

Most models of the future predict that the universe will expand exponentially forever. That will eventually spawn inconceivable numbers of Boltzmann brains, far outnumbering every human who has ever, or will ever, live.

Actually no, because if we accept the idea of an eternal, exponentially expanding universe, then eventually, somewhere, the exact right situation for creating humanity will be duplicated as well.

Silly_Sot:Okay, this pretty much proves that physicists really do need to get outside, more. IT DOES NOT MATTER if a different frame of reference for entirely different creatures might lead to different theories. ALL theories, if they are truly scientific, are merely provisional. ALL scientific theories are inherently "iffy".

Only because there are subjective. Everything is.

It is possible that we may be completely wrong about everything. We do not possess the ability to jump outside our skulls - outside human perception, reasoning, and comprehension of the natural world and its faculties - and truly observe the Universe on a completely impartial level. Everything we know comes to us through biased human filters. Even things we think are universal absolutes, like logic, math and physics - they're all human constructs: Human tools created by humans and used by humans to understand human perceptions of the Universe in human terms that humans can understand, for the benefit of humanity. We may be way off with all of this and never know it. The true answers may never be knowable, but that's okay because our current observations are the best guesses we got. Just because we can't count to infinity is no reason to stop counting.

Of course, this level of banal thinking leads to Solipsism and that's a dangerous caveat. Down a dark and lonely road it lies.

theorellior:Mad_Radhu: But wouldn't the expansion of the universe and growing entropy eventually limit the formation of these entities and their lifespan? Yes, maybe quantum mechanics somehow makes it possible for a fully formed mind to pop out of the quantum foam, but one it appears it will probably "die" because of a lack of energy to process.

The lower the level of available energy, the slower the thinking process. Because absolute zero is never reached, the brains will simply think more and more slowly, until the twilight of the Universe is encompassed by a single thought never quite being finished.

Mad_Radhu:Yes, maybe quantum mechanics somehow makes it possible for a fully formed mind to pop out of the quantum foam, but one it appears it will probably "die" because of a lack of energy to process.

Probably. But some wouldn't die.Gee, haven't you heard of evolution? Obviously it applies to brains that pop in from nowhere.

This is the sh*t these otherwise incredibly smart people are spending their time on? Space brains and infinity? How about focus on this: My frozen enchiladas say to microwave them "8-9 minutes", but after I microwave them for five, the edges as burned. What cooking time is correct?

Iluvbeer:This is the sh*t these otherwise incredibly smart people are spending their time on? Space brains and infinity? How about focus on this: My frozen enchiladas say to microwave them "8-9 minutes", but after I microwave them for five, the edges as burned. What cooking time is correct?

It's all about quantum states. Your enchilada exists both in a burned and no burned state at any given time. Observation and microwave radiation collapse reality into the burned state just to piss you off.

Iluvbeer:This is the sh*t these otherwise incredibly smart people are spending their time on? Space brains and infinity? How about focus on this: My frozen enchiladas say to microwave them "8-9 minutes", but after I microwave them for five, the edges as burned. What cooking time is correct?

you need to correct for the relativistic effects of the microwaves. as the enchilada's speed approaches the speed of light, its mass increases, thus you need to heat longer, but at a slower speed, man

also, is it possible that Jesus could heat a burrito so hot, that even he himself could not eat it?

docmattic:theorellior: Mad_Radhu: But wouldn't the expansion of the universe and growing entropy eventually limit the formation of these entities and their lifespan? Yes, maybe quantum mechanics somehow makes it possible for a fully formed mind to pop out of the quantum foam, but one it appears it will probably "die" because of a lack of energy to process.

The lower the level of available energy, the slower the thinking process. Because absolute zero is never reached, the brains will simply think more and more slowly, until the twilight of the Universe is encompassed by a single thought never quite being finished.